I can not agree with you in 100% regarding some thoughts, but you got good point of view

Didn’t realise there was this type of information out there

1) I already addressed the ArgusLeader.com link in post #26 and #28. I also provided the link to Newt’s taped comments that show that TP and Huffington misrepresented and lied about Newt’s position. And now finally TP provides the link 24 hours later. It turns out you’re stupid and lazy.

2) Now you agree with me. Newt never said, declared or told the students what TP and Huffington claims he said, declared, or told the students. Therefore, TP and Huffington lied. And ArgusLeader completely misreported Newt’s position about the CPA transition. Eliminating quotations and context is TP’s big lie. If you want to get the actual quote go to the mp3 link. Oh, that’s right…you’re stupid and lazy.

3) Oh, you skipped 3). Dumbass.

4) ad hominem attack. Nice. Still doesn’t change Newt’s comments that you can hear for yourself.

5) Redstate got it wrong, too. So what? It still doesn’t change Newt’s consistent postition on the CPA transition that TP and Huffington lied about. TP f’ed up now they’re trying to say that Newt made ArgusLeader change the headline. If you listen to Newt’s comments it’s quite obvious that ArgusLeader misrepresented Newt’s position and made the correction. Something that TP should learn to do instead of blaming some right-wing conspiracy.

DOWN WITH BUSH !

I can see why you are a Republican wingnut: you apparently, as my grandmother used to say, do not have the sense you were born with. Let’s go through your stupidity one step at a time:

1. Since you are apparently link-challenged (or maybe just lazy, as well as stupid), here is the link to the original article in the Argus-Leader: http://www.argusleader.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=/20060411/NEWS/604110311/1001

2. Nobody ever implied or indicated that the “pull out of Iraq and leave a small force” text from the above article (hope you can find it now) was a quote from Newt (what you labeled as “What Huffington says Gingrich says, but never said”). See, in the English language, we use things called QUOTATION MARKS to indicate direct quotes.

2. No doubt you will want to split semantic hairs about the differences, but Newt’s OWN WEB SITE says:

The United States needs to train the Iraqis as rapidly as possible and “pull back” from the cities to bases and air fields and serve as reinforcers as opposed to occupiers (this position is outlined in today’s WSJ as the official policy). — http://www.newt.org/backpage.asp?art=2921

4. Your idiocy about “What TP says Gingrich said, but never said” was addressed in comment #32 (and I second the motion about remedial math — and while you are in some learning institution somewhere /snark/, ask them to instruct you also in critical thinking and logic, as it appears you were absent those days in your previous education).

5. And, finally, if HuffPost et al. were distorting Newt’s message, why is it repeated verbatim at RedState? http://steven-foley.redstate.com/story/2006/4/11/112442/082

What a maroon.

I am not begging the question. The equation makes sense because the US is still occupying Iraq, regardless of who the (nominal) government is.

Again, Gingrich said: “It was an enormous mistake for us to try to occupy [Iraq] after June of 2003.”

Math and reading comprehension are not your forte, wwallace.

Besides, Newt has not called for a retreat as TP and Huffington have claimed he has. In fact, he has said the opposite. There’s the big lie.

As I said, neither ThinkProgress nor the Huffington Post are the sources. And here, I am going to correct myself: ArgusLeader is the actual source of the story not the Editor And Publisher.

Who’s wwallace?

Another troll, who, like you, is seemingly unable to process new information amd keeps spouting the same nonsense over and over, even after having been corrected.

Comment by Jumping Jack Flash — April 11, 2006 @ 3:35 pm

Denial. So it must really burn to have to keep it a secret, as we know how much you love the attention.

Besides, Newt has not called for a retreat as TP and Huffington have claimed he has. In fact, he has said the opposite. There’s the big lie.

who’s wwallace?

2. The United States needs to train the Iraqis as rapidly as possible and “pull back” from the cities to bases and air fields and serve as reinforcers as opposed to occupiers (this position is outlined in today’s WSJ as the official policy).

3. The United States is likely to need to keep some forces in Iraq for a very long time (Gingrich has been saying this as far back in 2003).

The Argus Leader has change their headline.
http://www.argusleader.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=/20060411/NEWS/604110311&SearchID=73241245401713

Links to speech.

Stream: http://media.streamtoyou.com/newt/sdclip.mp3

Dwnld: http://www.newt.org/mediafiles/sdclip.mp3

Here is a transcript of the part of the speech dealing with Iraq:

TRANSCRIPT: Newt Gingrich Answers Question Regarding the War in Iraq, at the University of South Dakota (April 10, 2006).

QUESTIONER: Well, as the last person to talk at the microphone let me thank you for coming tonight and speaking to us.

I found your history lesson, so to speak, very interesting, and when you talked about Edmund Burke. I had never heard of Edmund Burke until today, and you talked about how he supported the American Revolution because it was organic, and not the French Revolution because it was more mechanical, or felt more forced, is the way I looked at it.

And I was wondering, if we look at that framework of conservatism, how is it okay for the United States to be in a war with Iraq which does appear to be for the export … or for the idea of exporting democracy, even though it does appear to be very mechanical and not very organic, or in other words, like, it doesn’t seem like there’s a lot of Iraqi support at the time or even right now, if you look at it, for us to be there, so how can we support this exporting of democracy if it’s so mechanical?

NEWT GINGRICH: That’s very … well, I mean, first of all, that’s very interesting.

There’s no question that we are, by the standards of the Arab world, a radical way of doing business. As somebody earlier mentioned, if you look at Mubarak, if you look at Assad, if you look at all the various dictatorships, our effort to create democracy is clearly cutting across the pattern of the last hundred years, in which various dictators have dominated, and I think exploited, and I think frankly held back the Arab world. So in that sense, as an external force, we’re radical.

On the other hand, when you go out and you look at the polling data in Iraq, well over eighty percent of the people of Iraq want freedom. The overwhelm … you know, look at the overwhelming number who voted twice now. Here are people, think of the millions of people who knew they were risking death. I talked to somebody in … who had been in Afghanistan, where … and frankly one of the mistakes we made in Iraq was a Burkean mistake. If you look at what we did in Afghanistan … I’ll give you two pieces of this now and I’ll wrap up. I appreciate you letting me be with you tonight.

The first is, if you look in Iraq, the biggest mistake we made was in June of 2003 when we did something mechanical, which was try to impose an American proconsul, named Jerry Bremer, on an Iraqi population. It was totally outside the … you know … antithetical model. We had just proven in Afghanistan in 2002, we invented Karzai in three weeks.

It actually occurred in a meeting in Bonn, Germany. Because we got all the key Afghans in a room and we said to them, somebody who’s an Afghan has to run this place and they ought to be a Pashtun because it’s far and away the biggest tribe, which is a very Burkean, organic model. Well, Karzai, who is a relatively weak, but I think slowly gaining strength, leader – we have had none of the nationalist rebellion in Afghanistan. The Russians have been amazed because none of the things that happened to the Russians have happened to Americans in Afghanistan, because people relaxed and said, oh they’re here as liberators, quit, you know, quit worrying about them.

Okay, we had the same opportunity in May of 2003 in Iraq, and in fact Khalilzad who’s now the ambassador, who did it in Afghanistan, was poised to do it in Iraq, and we did precisely a mechanical thing. We imposed an American, who not only disbanded the Iraqi army, which meant we had to police the streets, which is a stunningly bad idea, but we also ended up with this American giving a speech once a week on television.

I mean, can you imagine, and this is your point, can you imagine anything more outsider than having an American speak on television in English, reporting to the Iraqi people once a week to kind of remind them psychologically, we’re here as your conquerors? It’s utterly un-Burkean, so there I, there I would agree with you and I think it was a terribly painful lesson.

But now look at where we are today. Somebody said to … who had been in Afghanistan, said to me, when they had the first election in Afghanistan that they were in a village where the women the night before went through all the rites for dying, because they were going to vote the next morning and they expected the Taliban to kill them.

Now in a country where it’s hard to get people to turn out to vote, before you assume the people don’t like to be free because they happen to be Muslim, or they don’t like to be free because they happen to be Arab, look at the courage of people who walked literally miles—because remember we closed down all the vehicles—they walked to get to their polling places, they walked past signs that said we will kill you, they walked by soldiers who were trying to guard them from car bombs, and they walked by the millions.

Now it is a mess. Why is it a mess? Cause it’s a mess, it’s a fact. It’s going to be a mess for a while. But it’s a mess of pretty darn brave people who have cast—over 80 percent of them have cast a ballot twice. And they have indicated that if we will have patience and we will have courage that they will have the courage to risk dying.

Remember, most of the people who die everyday now are Iraqis. So this is not about the Iraqis cutting and running. This is about one group of brave Iraqis who want a democracy versus a much smaller group of vicious thugs who hope that they can kill and murder and terrorize to get back to a dictatorship. And that’s what’s at stake. And yes it’s a hard thing to do, but so was the civil war, so was Washington crossing the Delaware, so was winning the cold war. And we may lose this fight, but if we lose it there will be millions of Iraqis who lose it with us. And we have…

I’ll just close with this thought because I find it so sobering. We have 12 thousand hours of tapes of Saddam’s people raping and torturing in their prisons. 12 thousand hours. These were evil, vicious people and the people who are killing innocent people in Iraqi tonight— in Iraq tonight-are evil, vicious people. And I want us to reduce American casualties, I want us to be as smart as possible, but there are no circumstances where I want to see those kind of people win. Not on our watch.

Thank you very, very much.

What Gingrinch said: “It was an enormous mistake for us to try to occupy [Iraq] after June of 2003.”

April 2006 – June 2003 = 34 months.

wwallace, you are in dire need of remedial math classes.

Follow the link to the Huffington Post. They have the link.

Standard practice in all blogs.